DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0308883 ("Yanagita").
Regarding claim 1, Yanagita discloses a photodetection device comprising a plurality of photoelectric converters (for example 101-1, 1031, Fig. 22) arranged in one of pixels (for example pixel unit 500-1, Fig. 22, paragraph [0241]) and configured to photoelectrically convert incident light (inherent function of photoelectric converters), wherein the plurality of photoelectric converters comprises:
at least one first photoelectric converter (101-1, Fig. 22); and
at least one second photoelectric converter (103-1, Fig. 22) having a lower sensitivity to the incident light than the first photoelectric converter (paragraph [0242]).
Regarding claim 18, Yanagita discloses a distance measuring system comprising:
a photodetection device comprising a plurality of photoelectric converters (101-1, 1031, Fig. 22) arranged in one of pixels (500-1, Fig. 22, paragraph [0241]) and configured to photoelectrically convert incident light (inherent function of photoelectric converters),
wherein the plurality of photoelectric converters comprises:
at least one first photoelectric converter (101-1, Fig. 22); and
at least one second photoelectric converter (103-1, Fig. 22) having a lower sensitivity to the incident light than the first photoelectric converter (paragraph [0242]); and
a signal processing circuit (18, Fig. 1, or see paragraph [0244]) that processes an output signal of the photodetection device (paragraph [0139]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2019190892-A ("Ozawa") in view of Yanagita.
Regarding claim 1, Ozawa discloses a photodetection device (see Figs. 8-10) comprising a plurality of photoelectric converters (see Figs. 8-10) configured to photoelectrically convert incident light, wherein the plurality of photoelectric converters comprises:
at least one first photoelectric converter (61, Fig. 8, or 63, Figs. 9-10); and
at least one second photoelectric converter (62, Fig. 8, or 64, Figs. 9-10) having a lower sensitivity to the incident light than the first photoelectric converter (Example 1: “first pixel 61 has higher sensitivity than the second pixel 62” and see Example 2: “the first pixel 63, which is a high sensitivity pixel, and the second pixel 64, which is a low sensitivity pixel” and similarly Examples 3 and 4).
Ozawa does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of photelectric converters are arranged in one of pixels.
However, Yanagita discloses plurality of photelectric converters (for example 101-1 and 103-1, Fig. 22) are arranged in one of pixels (500-1, Fig. 22, paragraph [0241]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange a plurality of photoelectric converters with different sensitivities in one pixel as disclosed by Yanagita in the device of Ozawa in order to avoid saturation and therefore increase the dynamic range.
Regarding claim 2, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 1, and Ozawa further discloses that each sensitivity is different from others among the plurality of second photoelectric converters (“One or both of the second sensitivities may be further subdivided to set sensitivity at three or more levels.” And see also: “That is, a pixel arrangement in which high sensitivity pixels, medium sensitivity pixels, and low sensitivity pixels are mixed may be used.”).
Regarding claim 4, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 1, and Ozawa further discloses that each of the first photoelectric converters comprises a first avalanche photodiode and each of the second photoelectric converters comprises a second avalanche photodiode (Example 2 defines them as SPAD elements: “Thus, in the second embodiment, by changing the thickness t of the n .sup.− well 72 of the SPAD element, as shown in FIG [9B]. The second pixel 64 having a relatively low [sensitivity] is provided.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 4, and Ozawa further discloses that a first voltage applied to the first avalanche photodiode is different from a second voltage applied to the second avalanche photodiode (implied, see Example 3: “The voltage value of the excess bias voltage V .sub.EX can be changed by the voltage value of the anode voltage V .sub.bd applied to the terminal 53 in FIGS. 3A and 3B.” and see “the first pixel 65 excess bias voltage V .sub.EX is relatively high, the excess bias voltage V .sub.EX is relatively low 2 pixels 66.”).
Regarding claim 7, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 5, and Ozawa further discloses that in a case where the first voltage is applied to an anode of the first avalanche photodiode and the second voltage is applied to an anode of the second avalanche photodiode (see Example 3: “The voltage value of the excess bias voltage V .sub.EX can be changed by the voltage value of the anode voltage V .sub.bd applied to the terminal 53 in FIGS. 3A and 3B.”), the second voltage is higher than the first voltage (implied in order to obtain the desired sensitivities of the first and second avalanche photodiodes, “As the anode voltage V .sub.bd , a large negative voltage that causes avalanche multiplication is applied.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 5, and Ozawa further discloses a voltage-adjusting unit that is configured to adjust the first voltage to the second voltage (see Example 4: “an anode voltage setting unit 71 that sets the anode voltage V .sub.bd applied to the terminal 53 of the pixel circuit 50”).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 1, and Yanagita further discloses opening ratios (openings formed by 251, Fig. 10) of the second photoelectric converters (103, Fig. 10) are smaller than an opening ratio of the first photoelectric converters (101-1, Fig. 10, see paragraph [0182]-[0184]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have smaller opening ratios for some photoelectric converters as disclosed by Yanagita in the device of Ozawa in order to reduce the amount of light entering the converter and extending the dynamic range.
Regarding claim 10, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 9, and Yanagita further discloses that a light-shielding region (region where 251 is located, Fig. 10) from the incident light in each of the second photoelectric converters (103, Fig. 10) is wider than a light-shielding region from the incident light in the first photoelectric converters (see Fig. 10, region of 251 over 103 is wider than region of 251 over 101-1 or 101-2, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a light-shielding region as disclosed by Yanagita in the device of Ozawa in order to reduce the amount of light entering the converter and extending the dynamic range.
Regarding claim 11, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 10, and Yanagita further comprising a light-shielding film (251, Fig. 10) provided in the light-shielding region (region where 251 is located, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a light-shielding films in the light-shielding regions as disclosed by Yanagita in the device of Ozawa in order to reduce the amount of light entering the converter and extending the dynamic range.
Regarding claim 12, Ozawa discloses a photodetection device comprising a plurality of photoelectric converters (see Figs. 8-10) configured to photoelectrically convert incident light (inherent function of photoelectric converters), wherein sensitivities of the plurality of photoelectric converters to the incident light are configured to be collectively decreased in a stepwise manner (see Example 4: “the excess bias voltage V.sub.EX is adjusted continuously or stepwise according to the magnitude of the disturbance light.”) depending on a result of photoelectric conversions at the plurality of photoelectric converters (“when the light receiving device according to the fourth embodiment is used as the light receiving device… the magnitude of the disturbance light determined in the preparation mode is determined by the anode voltage setting unit 71. It can be used as input.”).
Ozawa does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of photoelectric converters are arranged in one of pixels.
However, Yanagita discloses plurality of photelectric converters (for example 101-1 and 103-1, Fig. 22) are arranged in one of pixels (500-1, Fig. 22, paragraph [0241]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange a plurality of photoelectric converters with different sensitivities in one pixel as disclosed by Yanagita in the device of Ozawa in order to avoid saturation and therefore increase the dynamic range.
Regarding claim 13, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 12, and Ozawa further discloses that in a case where all of the plurality of photoelectric converters photoelectrically convert the incident light, the sensitivities are configured to be collectively decreased in a stepwise manner (see example 4, light receiving device determines magnitude of the disturbance light in the preparation mode and is used as input to adjust the voltage either continuously or stepwise).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Yanagita further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0286908 ("Yamazaki").
Regarding claim 3, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 1, but does not disclose a number of the second photoelectric converters is smaller than a number of the first photoelectric converters.
However, Yamazaki discloses a number of the second photoelectric converters (converters with a wire grid on them, Figs. 12-13) is smaller than a number of the first photoelectric converters (converters with no wire grid, Figs. 12-13, paragraph [0140]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include more first photoelectric converters than second photoelectric converters as disclosed by Yamazaki in the device of Ozawa in view of Yanagita in order to ensure quality measurements in the conditions that occur most often and ensuring dynamic range is maintained.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Yanagita further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0382726 ("Inaoka").
Regarding claim 6, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 5, but does not disclose that in a case where the first voltage is applied to a cathode of the first avalanche photodiode and the second voltage is applied to a cathode of the second avalanche photodiode, the second voltage is lower than the first voltage.
However, Inaoka discloses a case where the first voltage (VE1, Figs. 5, 9a) is applied to a cathode of the first avalanche photodiode (224, Fig. 5 and see converters with 5V, Fig. 9a) and the second voltage (VE2, Fig. 5, 9a) is applied to a cathode of the second avalanche photodiode (224, Fig. 5, see converters with 1V, Fig. 9a), the second voltage is lower than the first voltage (paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the voltages to the cathode as disclosed by Inaoka in the device of Ozawa in view of Yanagita in order to obtain the desired sensitivities of the first and second avalanche photodiodes.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Yanagita further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0163917 ("Yamada").
Regarding claim 14, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a switch connected to a plurality of external power supplies having different output voltages from each other, wherein the switch is configured to switch a voltage to be applied to the plurality of photoelectric converters from an output voltage of an external power supply of the plurality of external power supplies to an output voltage of another external power supply depending on a result of photoelectric conversions at the plurality of photoelectric converters.
However, Yamada discloses a switch (any of Sw1 or Sw2, Fig. 8) connected to a plurality of external power supplies (V1, V2, Fig. 8) having different output voltages from each other (V1<V2, paragraph [0130]), wherein the switch (any of Sw1 or Sw2, Fig. 8) is configured to switch a voltage to be applied to the plurality of photoelectric converters from an output voltage of an external power supply (output of V1, Fig. 8) of the plurality of external power supplies (V1, V2, Fig. 8) to an output voltage of another external power supply (output of V2, Fig. 8) depending on a result of photoelectric conversions at the plurality of photoelectric converters (taught by Ozawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a switch to choose the desired voltage level as disclosed by Yamada in the device of Ozawa in view of Yanagita in order to simplify the circuit, reducing area, cost, and complexity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Yanagita further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0121119 ("Nishi").
Regarding claim 15, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 12, and Ozawa further discloses that each of the plurality of photoelectric converters comprises an avalanche photodiode (“the light receiving unit of the pixel is configured by a SPAD element.” See 51, Figs. 3A-3B), a transistor (any one of QL, Qp, Qn, Figs. 3A-3B) connected to the avalanche photodiode (51, Figs. 3A-3B).
Ozawa in view of Yanagita does not disclose a switch connected in parallel to the transistor, wherein the switch is configured to be turned on and off depending on a result of a photoelectric conversion at the avalanche photodiode.
However, Nishi discloses a switch (102, Figs. 2-3) connected in parallel to a transistor (104, 105, Figs. 2-3), wherein the switch (102, Figs. 2-3) is configured to be turned on and off depending on a result of a photoelectric conversion at the avalanche photodiode (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a switch parallel to a transistor to be controlled depending on the result of the photoelectric conversion as disclosed by Nishi in the device of Ozawa in view of Yanagita in order to adjust the bias/amplification of the device based on light intensity levels.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa in view of Yanagita further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0041559 ("Higashitani").
Regarding claim 16, Ozawa in view of Yanagita discloses the photodetection device according to claim 1, and Ozawa further discloses: a light-receiving lens (31, Fig. 2) that focuses the incident light on the plurality of photoelectric converters (32, Fig. 2).
Ozawa in view of Yanagita does not disclose an optical film is provided on a surface of the light-receiving lens and is configured to attenuate the incident light depending on a set value of the sensitivity.
However, Higashitani discloses an optical film (for example, 22, Fig. 4) is provided on a surface of the light-receiving lens (44, Fig. 4) and is configured to attenuate the incident light depending on a set value of the sensitivity (paragraphs [0068], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optical film on the surface of the lens as disclosed by Higashitani in the device of Ozawa in view of Yanagita in order to decrease light transmission and generate pixel signals with a dynamic range extended by making a difference in light-receiving sensitivity between the low-sensitivity pixels and the high-sensitivity pixels without changing spectral characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, Ozawa in view of in view of Yanagita and Higashitani discloses the photodetection device according to claim 16, but does not disclose that the sensitivity of the first photoelectric converters is 10 times or more higher than the sensitivities of the second photoelectric converters.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form/control the two converters in a such a way that their sensitivities differ by specific amount as desired for a particular application.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Ozawa.
Regarding claim 19, Yanagita discloses a distance measuring system comprising:
a photodetection device comprising a plurality of photoelectric converters (101-1, 1031, Fig. 22) arranged in one of pixels (500-1, Fig. 22, paragraph [0241]) and configured to photoelectrically convert incident light (inherent function of photoelectric converters), and
a signal processing circuit (18, Fig. 1, or see paragraph [0244]) that processes an output signal of the photodetection device (paragraph [0139]).
Yanagita does not disclose that sensitivities of the plurality of photoelectric converters to the incident light are configured to be collectively decreased in a stepwise manner depending on a result of photoelectric conversions at the plurality of photoelectric converters.
However, Ozawa discloses that sensitivities of the plurality of photoelectric converters to the incident light are configured to be collectively decreased in a stepwise manner (see Example 4: “the excess bias voltage V.sub.EX is adjusted continuously or stepwise according to the magnitude of the disturbance light.”) depending on a result of photoelectric conversions at the plurality of photoelectric converters (“when the light receiving device according to the fourth embodiment is used as the light receiving device… the magnitude of the disturbance light determined in the preparation mode is determined by the anode voltage setting unit 71. It can be used as input.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights